USDT Market Cap Overtakes Ethereum, What Signal Does This Convey?

marsbitPublicado a 2026-07-10Actualizado a 2026-07-10

Resumen

The article discusses the significance of USDT's market capitalization rivaling that of Ethereum. It clarifies that this does not indicate Ethereum provides economic security for USDT, as stablecoin security relies on the issuer, Tether, not the underlying blockchain. The trend also does not reflect a flaw in Ethereum's value, as ETH and USDT serve fundamentally different purposes—one as a yield-bearing asset for network fees, the other as a dollar-pegged medium of exchange. The core argument is that the dominant, enduring demand in crypto is for permissionless dollar transfers, a simple utility that doesn't require complex blockchain technology. USDT's growth, despite its issuer's controversial background, proves users prioritize widespread availability and ease of use over the technical merits or decentralization of the hosting chain. While stablecoin aggregate market cap continues to rise, the combined market cap of major smart contract platform native tokens (like Ethereum, Solana) has remained stagnant, showing a decoupling between the demand for simple dollar liquidity and the value assigned to the underlying settlement layers. The conclusion is that the market values the utility of permissionless dollars above all else, with users largely indifferent to the issuer's credibility or the hosting blockchain's governance, as long as the stablecoin is functional and accessible.

Author: Jon Reiter

Compiled by: Luffy, Foresight News

The market cap of USDT once exceeded that of Ethereum. As of the time of writing this article, USDT's market cap is slightly lower than Ethereum's, with only a few percentage points difference between the two. What does it mean for USDT to become the second-largest cryptocurrency after Bitcoin?

Meanwhile, a thought-provoking phenomenon is that while the stablecoin market has continued to expand over the past decade, the market caps of major non-stablecoin cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, BNB, XRP, and TRON have largely stagnated.

This Is Not About Security

First, let's clarify what this does NOT represent. Many Web3 solutions rely on one type of asset to provide an "economic security cushion" for another type of business. A typical example: the general design logic of oracles, where decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) vote to ensure data accuracy, and the oracle's output prices are used to settle various contract transactions. Projects like Chainlink are variations of this logic.

The premise for this mechanism is that the total market cap of the DAO's governance token must be far higher than the transaction volume settled through that oracle. The reason is simple: if it only costs $1 million to control the DAO but can manipulate the settlement of $10 million worth of contracts, this system is completely insecure from an economic perspective. This is not a technical flaw in the code but a defect in the economic incentive design, allowing motivated parties to manipulate the system at low cost for self-serving, non-objective, and unfair outcomes.

However, Ethereum provides no economic security backing for USDT whatsoever. USDT is issued and circulates on dozens of public chains like TRON, none of which can guarantee USDT either. Theoretically, even if someone breaches a public chain where USDT is issued, achieving a double-spend or seizing others' tokens, Tether, the operating company behind USDT, can directly freeze, recover the on-chain tokens, and reissue them on other chains.

Whether the total market cap of that chain is just $1 or $1 trillion, Tether can execute this operation: it only needs to pay the on-chain transfer fee to fully control the token disposition. Even if an attacker completely controls the entire public chain and blocks interactions with Tether's official contracts, the project team can simply abandon that chain and refuse to redeem all USDT on it. The team can then use solutions like hard forks or off-chain ownership certificates to protect innocent users' ability to redeem assets on other chains, with the entire process arranged autonomously by Tether. Controlling the public chain does not grant access to the dollar reserves held by Tether.

Admittedly, USDT relies on public chains for circulation, so the market needs a set of stable, usable, and sufficiently secure underlying networks. But that's it. The core entity for asset security remains Tether. As long as reliable public chains exist in the market, USDT can circulate normally. The standard for a reliable public chain is generally that its native token has a considerable market cap. However, the native token's market cap does not provide substantial security for the stablecoin. Therefore, it's entirely possible for a public chain with a native token market cap of only a few billion, or even a few hundred million dollars, to carry stablecoin circulation worth hundreds of billions. If a public chain's native token total market cap is only $1 million, it would be difficult to support a mature DeFi ecosystem, and users wouldn't be willing to store tens of billions of USDT on it; but if users are willing, there are no hard security barriers from a logical perspective.

This Does Not Indicate a Flaw in Ethereum Itself

The continuous rise of USDT's market cap relative to Ethereum's does not indicate that Ethereum's own value is being undermined. Admittedly, an increase in USDT's market cap represents a greater number of users and larger capital volumes needing stablecoins, but this does not equate to USDT's usage demand surpassing that of the Ethereum ecosystem.

USDT is a store of value tool backed by issuer reserves; the ETH token, in essence, is a claim on the future revenue of Ethereum's entire network block space. Even if the market is extremely bullish on Ethereum, network scaling leading to a surge in block space supply and lower transaction fees would suppress the ETH price. Conversely, heavy user adoption of USDT only increases the total issuance of USDT, without changing its fixed $1 per token price.

Users choosing to hold funds in USDT has no direct connection to Ethereum's competitiveness and development prospects as a Web3 foundational platform. We can understand this intuitively through two extreme hypothetical scenarios: in both, USDT's market cap could far exceed Ethereum's, but Ethereum's situation would be vastly different.

Scenario One: The market largely abandons Ethereum for a superior underlying public chain, the ETH price plummets, but users still frequently use USDT for transfers.

Scenario Two: Ethereum achieves major technological breakthroughs (Layer-2 architecture innovation, zero-knowledge proof technology matures), its network scaling capacity surges dramatically, block space supply becomes abundant, and transaction fees drop significantly.

Both situations would cause Ethereum's market cap to shrink. In these cases, USDT's market cap might surge or fall in tandem, entirely depending on user demand for stablecoins. Changes in USDT's scale are not inherently tied to Ethereum's quality.

The Key Lies in Real Application Demand

The most rigid demand scenario in Web3 is permissionless dollar transfers. We analyzed the unique value of this scenario four years ago, and to this day, it remains the most core practical application in the crypto industry.

An old saying in the industry holds true: many people claim to be bullish on blockchain technology, but in reality, they only care about capital flow. The permissionless dollar transfer sector holds massive amounts of capital, but this scenario has extremely low technical requirements and doesn't need complex protocols or advanced cryptography to function. USDT was initially issued on the Bitcoin sidechain Omni, simply understood as the issuer selling Bitcoin token receipts for dollars, with users redeeming dollars against those receipts. While not exactly equivalent, the core logic is similar. Relying only on Bitcoin's base layer, very little code was needed to build a usable stablecoin: define a batch of satoshis corresponding to dollar redemption value, custody sufficient reserve funds, and a basic stablecoin function could be achieved.

The core of implementing this scenario is having a credible issuer; permissionless, decentralized stablecoins generally have various defects. But overlaying issuer credit on top of Bitcoin's simple base layer can meet transfer needs; high-end technology is not a rigid requirement. USDT is just a logically simple smart contract; the technology itself holds no barriers.

This also helps explain the value differentiation among major public chains. Ethereum is currently the most mainstream smart contract public chain, but any normally functioning public chain is sufficient to host stablecoin issuance. Which chain stablecoin funds flow to is unrelated to USDT's overall scale ceiling. Stablecoins have extremely low performance demands on public chains, and the underlying architecture of reserve-backed stablecoins hasn't seen substantial iteration for years.

If we were discussing the market cap of Tether on Ethereum, TRON, Arbitrum, or other specific blockchains, that might reflect the relative value of those blockchains. If permissionless dollar transfers are the industry's core demand, public chains that excel at hosting this scenario are more likely to attract capital and accumulate large amounts of USDT. Major public chains can compete with each other, but as long as the stablecoin itself holds usage value, USDT's overall total market cap can continue to expand.

Ethereum is currently the highest-market-cap smart contract public chain, serving as a benchmark to roughly measure the size of the entire contract public chain sector. Currently, Bitcoin accounts for about 60% of the total crypto market cap. Excluding stablecoins, Ethereum occupies about half of the remaining market, with all other public chains splitting the other 50%. A rough estimate puts the total value of all smart contract public chains at about twice Ethereum's market cap. For years, the overall market cap of this sector has largely stagnated; meanwhile, the stablecoin sector, led by USDT, has continued to surge in size.

Looking at individual blockchains, stablecoin market cap might grow or not. But from a macro total perspective, years of data have proven: there is no positive correlation between a public chain's native token market cap and the overall scale of stablecoins.

More data and products support this. BlackRock's BUIDL tokenized money market fund, Circle's USDC, are all similar competitors to USDT, but such products almost never add value to the public chains they are issued on. The most direct fact is that stablecoin-related product sizes expand year after year, while the underlying public chains' native token market caps remain flat long-term.

Summary

There is one consistent narrative. Users' core need is permissionless dollar-denominated assets, and they are willing to trust stablecoin issuers, even indifferent to the detailed background of the issuing entity. Objectively, USDT's offshore entity background and reserve transparency have been controversial, its credit backing far inferior to BlackRock or PayPal, yet USDT's size leads by a wide margin.

Traditional financial giants have entered the stablecoin arena, promoting their strong brand advantages, yet they consistently fail to capture mainstream market share from USDT. Only USDC has achieved a certain scale, but its size has long trailed USDT significantly, and it has faced multiple redemption crisis-related issues in the past, struggling to break into the top tier.

For average users, as long as the token is widely circulated and transfers are convenient, the issuer's identity is irrelevant; the underlying public chain's governance model doesn't influence user choice either. Even if a public chain's token is highly concentrated and controlled by a single entity (TRON); managed for years by a multi-sig wallet (Polygon); claims self-custody but has an asset-freezing security council (Arbitrum); has a complex architecture, operated by a single company, and is not fully transparent to regulators (Base) – users continue to use them normally.

Users' sole core demand is permissionless dollar transfers. Currently, USDT is live on 14 public chains, USDC covers over 30. Issuers will proactively deploy on any public chain where users gather. Issuers don't care about the underlying network, and neither do users.

The only assets in the entire crypto industry with true brand recognition are Bitcoin, USDT, with USDC a distant second. Users will use these stablecoins on any public chain. The fact that a stablecoin issued by an offshore entity with questionable credit has grown into the second-largest digital asset by market cap, and circulates primarily on TRON, a chain largely controlled by a single individual, all indicates that users care more about the utility of permissionless dollars than the operational mechanisms behind them.

If regulatory agencies worldwide issue compliant licenses for permissionless dollar stablecoins, it would mean official recognition of the permissionless transfer model. As long as both compliant and offshore stablecoins receive regulatory backing, the entire sector's scale will continue to inflate, potentially even far exceeding the market cap of the smart contract public chains that host them.

Criptos en tendencia

CitreaCTR

wrapped stUSDTWSTUSDT

Velodrome FinanceVELODROME

BrevisBREV

ZRX（0X）ZRX

PancakeSwapCAKE

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat does the fact that USDT's market cap has approached or surpassed Ethereum's signify, according to the article?

AIt signifies the dominance of the core use case for permissionless dollar transfers. USDT's growth reflects strong demand for a tool to move dollars without permission, which is distinct from and not directly tied to the value or technical merits of underlying blockchains like Ethereum. The market caps of non-stablecoin layer-1 tokens have largely stagnated while stablecoin volume has exploded, highlighting this divergence.

QDoes a high USDT market cap mean that Ethereum provides economic security for USDT? Why or why not?

ANo, Ethereum provides no economic security for USDT. USDT's security is based on the reserves held by its issuer, Tether. Tether can freeze, recover, or reissue tokens on other blockchains even if one chain is compromised. The value or security of the underlying chain's native token is largely irrelevant to USDT's safety, as long as there is at least one functional chain available for its operation.

QWhat are the two hypothetical scenarios presented in the article where USDT's market cap could exceed Ethereum's, with very different implications for Ethereum?

AScenario 1: The market abandons Ethereum for a superior blockchain, causing ETH's price to plummet, but users continue to use USDT heavily for transfers. Scenario 2: Ethereum achieves a major technological breakthrough (like L2 innovation or ZK-proof maturity), leading to massive network scalability and significantly lower transaction fees, which could also depress ETH's price. In both cases, USDT's market cap could rise above Ethereum's, but the reasons and implications for Ethereum's health are completely different.

QWhat is the primary reason given for USDT's massive success despite its controversial offshore background and opacity, compared to offerings from traditional giants like BlackRock or PayPal?

AThe primary reason is that users' core demand is simply for a widely accepted, convenient tool for permissionless dollar transfers. They care more about the functionality—broad circulation and ease of transfer—than the identity, credibility, or regulatory status of the issuer. USDT was early, achieved critical mass in liquidity and adoption, and meets this basic need effectively.

QAccording to the article, what does the competitive landscape and user behavior around stablecoins indicate about user priorities?

AIt indicates that users prioritize the utility of permissionless dollar transfers above all else. They are largely indifferent to the underlying blockchain's governance model (e.g., centralized vs. decentralized), the issuer's brand reputation, or the technical sophistication of the stablecoin protocol. As long as the stablecoin works for transfers, users will adopt it, which is why USDT thrives on various chains regardless of their individual characteristics.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Injective software package hit by malicious supply chain attack – Details

In a software supply chain attack, malicious actors compromised the Injective Labs TypeScript SDK (@injectivelabs/sdk-ts v1.20.21) by uploading a tainted version to the npm registry. The attackers gained access to a legitimate contributor's GitHub account to distribute malicious commits. The compromised package, disguised as a routine update, contained malware that activated only when developers used specific wallet generation functions, stealing private keys and mnemonic seed phrases. This breach impacted approximately 50,000 weekly downloads and spread through transitive dependencies in 17 other Injective packages. While a clean version (v1.20.23) was later released, the malicious package remained accessible. Affected users are advised to rotate credentials, create new wallets, and move their funds.

ambcryptoHace 1 hora(s)

Injective software package hit by malicious supply chain attack – Details

ambcryptoHace 1 hora(s)

After Aave's Exit and TVL's Sharp Fluctuation, Where Does MegaETH's Valuation Anchor Lie?

Following the withdrawal of Aave and a sharp drop in its Total Value Locked (TVL), the valuation of the high-performance DeFi blockchain MegaETH faces scrutiny. Once a highly anticipated project with a fully diluted valuation (FDV) reaching around $2 billion, MegaETH saw its TVL plummet from a May peak of $245 million to just over $30 million in July, a roughly 70% decline. Its native token, MEGA, currently trades around $0.048 with a market cap of approximately $54 million and an FDV of about $480 million. The report identifies a core vulnerability: MegaETH's TVL was heavily dependent on a single protocol, Aave V3, which at its peak contributed around 90% of the chain's TVL. A significant portion of this capital is attributed to leveraged yield-farming strategies involving stablecoins like USDe. When the profitability of these strategies diminished, capital rapidly exited, exposing the lack of diversified, sustainable activity. Three key mismatches between MegaETH's valuation and its fundamentals are highlighted: 1. **Valuation vs. Real Usage:** With an FDV of ~$4.8B but only ~$1M in annualized protocol revenue and ~2,600 daily active addresses, the valuation appears disconnected from current economic activity. 2. **Token Narrative vs. Ecosystem Reality:** Despite its DeFi narrative, nearly 80% of the chain's recent protocol revenue comes from a trading card game, Monster, not from core DeFi applications like Aave. The chain's native stablecoin, USDM, also shows low trading volume and a declining market cap. 3. **Short-Term Hype vs. Long-Term Delivery:** Initial hype from token generation, blue-chip integrations, and influencer support has faded. Major protocols like Uniswap now hold minimal TVL on the chain, indicating that early capital was largely transient and driven by incentives rather than organic demand. The situation reflects a broader market trend where investors are becoming less tolerant of valuations based on inflated TVL and narrative, demanding clearer evidence of sustainable transactions, revenue, and ecosystem development. While MEGA's price may experience short-term rebounds from market sentiment, a fundamental re-rating likely depends on the team's ability to convert its remaining resources into tangible, user-retaining applications and genuine ecosystem growth.

链捕手Hace 1 hora(s)

After Aave's Exit and TVL's Sharp Fluctuation, Where Does MegaETH's Valuation Anchor Lie?

链捕手Hace 1 hora(s)

Goldman Sachs In-Depth Report: Who Will Be the Long-Term Winners in China's AI Large Model Industry?

Goldman Sachs Report: China's AI Models at an Inflection Point China's open-source/open-weight large language models (LLMs) have reached performance parity with top global proprietary models, according to a Goldman Sachs report. This is driven by architectural innovations and higher parameter efficiency, allowing Chinese models to achieve comparable capabilities at 2%-10% the parameter size and significantly lower cost. The market is evolving into a two-tiered structure: a high-end segment (e.g., GLM5.2, Qwen3.7 Max) with premium pricing and a low-end, price-sensitive segment for global SMEs and individual users. Key points: * **Cost & Performance:** Innovations like Mixture of Experts (MoE) enable high performance with smaller models. Projects like Meituan's LongCat 2.0, trained on domestic hardware, highlight progress in tech self-sufficiency. * **Open-Source Strategy:** Most Chinese players use open-source/open-weight models for flexibility and ecosystem growth. However, Goldman notes this may underreport actual deployment and revenue. A shift toward "open-weight + community license" models with revenue sharing (e.g., MiniMax) could improve monetization. * **Market Shift & Global Expansion:** Enterprise AI adoption is shifting from "token maximization" to "ROI-first." International expansion, especially in non-US markets, is a major growth driver. Chinese models are increasingly available on global platforms like AWS Bedrock and Microsoft Copilot. * **Competitive Landscape:** Using a framework based on pricing power, cost advantage, and financial strength, Goldman identifies **Zhipu AI and DeepSeek** as the strongest in foundational text models, and **ByteDance** as the leader in multimodal/video generation. The report maintains Buy ratings on MiniMax and Kuaishou. * **Market Growth:** China's AI model API and subscription revenue is projected to grow from an estimated ¥35 billion in 2026 to ¥879 billion by 2030.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Goldman Sachs In-Depth Report: Who Will Be the Long-Term Winners in China's AI Large Model Industry?

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Goldman Sachs Deep Dive Report: Who Will Become the Long-Term Winners in China's AI Large Model Industry?

Goldman Sachs Report: Who Will Be the Long-Term Winners in China's AI Large Model Industry? China's AI large model sector is at a historic inflection point. Goldman Sachs argues that the intelligence of Chinese open-source/open-weight models is approaching top global proprietary models. Rapid adoption by domestic enterprises and global SMEs is creating a data flywheel effect that will further drive model iteration. The evolution is summarized as moving from "DeepSeek's cost-efficiency moment last year to GLM's model-intelligence moment this year." Chinese models achieve near-state-of-the-art performance at significantly lower cost, primarily due to architectural innovations like Mixture of Experts (MoE) and higher parameter efficiency. Models like DeepSeek V4 Pro (1.6T params), GLM5.2 (0.7T), and MiniMax M3 (0.4T) are much smaller than global leaders. Recent advancements in coding capability are attributed to better data curation and RLHF. Landmarks like Meituan's LongCat 2.0, trained fully on domestic AI chips, demonstrate progress in hardware stack independence. The market is forming a "two-tiered structure." The high-end tier (e.g., GLM5.2, Alibaba's Qwen3.7 Max) prices around $1 per million tokens, about 10-25% of US top models, with estimated inference gross margins of 10-20%. The low-end tier (priced as low as $0.06-$0.2 per million tokens) targets price-sensitive global SMEs and individuals. MiniMax derives 60-70% of revenue overseas. Goldman forecasts China's AI model API/subscription revenue to grow from an estimated RMB 35bn in 2026 to RMB 879bn by 2030. Most Chinese players adopt open-source/open-weight strategies for deployment flexibility and community feedback, though this limits monetization as deployments on third-party platforms (e.g., Alibaba Cloud) may not generate direct revenue. A shift towards "open-weight + community license" models with revenue-sharing agreements (like MiniMax's approach) could improve unit economics. International expansion, particularly in non-US markets, is the key growth driver. The global enterprise AI paradigm is shifting from "token maximization" to "ROI prioritization." Chinese models are already hosted on major global platforms like AWS Bedrock and are under consideration for integration into Microsoft Copilot. Using a competitive framework based on pricing power, cost advantage, and financial strength, Goldman identifies the strongest players: In foundational text models, Zhipu AI (initiated coverage) and DeepSeek lead. In multimodal/video generation, ByteDance's Seed is the frontrunner, with Kuaishou's Kling and MiniMax's Hailuo also well-positioned. Goldman maintains a Buy rating on MiniMax, citing its attractive valuation.

链捕手Hace 1 hora(s)

Goldman Sachs Deep Dive Report: Who Will Become the Long-Term Winners in China's AI Large Model Industry?

链捕手Hace 1 hora(s)

Circle secures final OCC approval for national trust bank to strengthen USDC infrastructure

Circle has received final approval from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to establish Circle National Trust, a federally regulated national trust bank. This marks a key regulatory milestone, bringing core parts of the company's USDC stablecoin infrastructure under direct federal oversight. The new bank will initially provide digital asset custody services for Circle and its affiliates, with a pathway to serve institutional clients and potentially manage the USDC reserve in the future. The approval advances Circle from the conditional stage it reached alongside other crypto firms in late 2025. This move reflects a broader trend of integrating crypto infrastructure into the existing U.S. banking framework through national trust charters, which specialize in custody and fiduciary services rather than traditional lending.

ambcryptoHace 1 hora(s)

Circle secures final OCC approval for national trust bank to strengthen USDC infrastructure

ambcryptoHace 1 hora(s)

Trading

Spot

Artículos destacados

Cómo comprar CAP

¡Bienvenido a HTX.com! Hemos hecho que comprar Cap (CAP) sea simple y conveniente. Sigue nuestra guía paso a paso para iniciar tu viaje de criptos.Paso 1: crea tu cuenta HTXUtiliza tu correo electrónico o número de teléfono para registrarte y obtener una cuenta gratuita en HTX. Experimenta un proceso de registro sin complicaciones y desbloquea todas las funciones.Obtener mi cuentaPaso 2: ve a Comprar cripto y elige tu método de pagoTarjeta de crédito/débito: usa tu Visa o Mastercard para comprar Cap (CAP) al instante.Saldo: utiliza fondos del saldo de tu cuenta HTX para tradear sin problemas.Terceros: hemos agregado métodos de pago populares como Google Pay y Apple Pay para mejorar la comodidad.P2P: tradear directamente con otros usuarios en HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): ofrecemos servicios personalizados y tipos de cambio competitivos para los traders.Paso 3: guarda tu Cap (CAP)Después de comprar tu Cap (CAP), guárdalo en tu cuenta HTX. Alternativamente, puedes enviarlo a otro lugar mediante transferencia blockchain o utilizarlo para tradear otras criptomonedas.Paso 4: tradear Cap (CAP)Tradear fácilmente con Cap (CAP) en HTX's mercado spot. Simplemente accede a tu cuenta, selecciona tu par de trading, ejecuta tus trades y monitorea en tiempo real. Ofrecemos una experiencia fácil de usar tanto para principiantes como para traders experimentados.

48 Vistas totalesPublicado en 2026.06.26Actualizado en 2026.06.26

Discusiones

Bienvenido a la comunidad de HTX. Aquí puedes mantenerte informado sobre los últimos desarrollos de la plataforma y acceder a análisis profesionales del mercado. A continuación se presentan las opiniones de los usuarios sobre el precio de CAP (CAP).